Singapore’s heritage study boom stretches thin pool of conservation experts
A surge in heritage impact assessments and archaeological mitigation works in Singapore has stretched the country's small pool of architectural conservation and archaeology experts, raising concerns about quality and oversight. The International Council on Monuments and Sites Singapore warns that wi
SINGAPORE — Over the past few years, public agencies in Singapore have commissioned a steady stream of heritage-related studies intended to guide the redevelopment of sites with heritage significance. These include the 2021 study of the former Old Police Academy at Mount Pleasant, which served as a pilot for the Ministry of National Development’s Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) framework introduced in 2022. The framework was later applied to studies of Bukit Timah’s Turf City and Gillman Barracks.
Other projects sit outside the HIA framework. At Adam Park, the Singapore Land Authority’s recent tender requires archaeological mitigation, while the Housing and Development Board has called for a tender for heritage studies related to two future development areas. This growth in commissioned work is welcome, as it represents an important change in how heritage is incorporated earlier in policymaking, but it brings another issue into focus: Does Singapore have enough expertise to do it well?
There is no formal register of heritage practitioners in Singapore, and the pool varies by discipline. Architectural conservation draws on a relatively small number of specialist practices and university-based teams, while historical and social-history research often depends on individual historians and researchers. A single large HIA may require several kinds of expertise, from architectural conservation to archival and social research, though there is no standard number of specialists for every project. Overseas firms can supplement local teams, but familiarity with Singapore’s historical sources, material culture and planning context remains important. There is also no formal licensing or certification system for heritage consultants.
The situation is more acute in archaeology. Singapore has very few practitioners with substantial local field experience, and the active professional pool is exceptionally small. The National Heritage Board (NHB) acknowledged the need to build local archaeological expertise in 2024, but that need has become increasingly urgent as archaeological work becomes part of development-related heritage studies. Capacity in architectural conservation and engineering is stretched. There is no evidence yet of studies taking longer or that the system is breaking down, but there are reasons to be concerned.
Poor-quality studies have serious consequences. An inadequate building assessment may misstate a site’s significance and influence decisions about retention, alteration or redevelopment — decisions that can be difficult to reverse. In archaeology, there is an added risk: excavation is destructive. If contexts are disturbed or artefacts and records are inadequately documented, the original evidence cannot be reconstructed for future researchers. Once accepted, a report acquires substantive weight; its conclusions may determine whether more investigation is needed, remains are retained or development proceeds.
Kevin Tan, President of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Singapore, and Yeo Kang Shua, Vice-President of ICOMOS Singapore, argue that where expertise is critically scarce and investigation can permanently alter the evidence, the state can take a more active role. At Adam Park, the SLA tender requires the successful tenderer to appoint a project archaeologist to conduct mitigation works, but who should set the research design and methodology, determine the qualifications of those leading the work, and ensure its quality? With the small number of experts available, separate tenders on their own may not be able to supply the right people or establish consistent standards.
There is already an institutional foundation. NHB’s Archaeology Advisory Panel advises on archaeological initiatives and policies, while legislative proposals put forward for public consultation in 2024 envisaged a more direct regulatory role for NHB. A national system could ensure that field records, drawings, photographs, finds registers and digital data are consistently deposited and accessible, with each development-led investigation contributing to a cumulative national record. For built heritage, that means strengthening the professional base and review. For archaeology, where expertise is exceptionally scarce and the work can destroy the evidence it seeks to understand, a more state-led model deserves serious consideration.
